Alice: Madness Returns does so much right it's frustrating how much it gets …

Share this story

The original Alice title was a PC exclusive, and remains a collector's item for fans of the darker take on an already dark story. We now have a sequel to that game that continues the story of Alice while also exploring her past. The game features solid platforming and some inspired aesthetic choices, but that doesn't save the game from repetition and a lack of ambition.

You'll be floating from platform to platform throughout the game, but the core mechanics have not changed or matured in any meaningful way in the sections I played. The problem is that each chapter seems to go on forever, long past the point of tedium.

Alice: Madness Returns

The game adds many beautiful touches to the classical play. When you dodge attacks you briefly break apart into a fluttering group of butterflies. You block projectiles by spinning a parasol. You'll see wonderful patterns in the motion blur of your Vorpal blade. At its best, this is game that looks like a painting, and the interstitial chapters that take place in a Dickensian London are appropriately dark and dreary, making Wonderland seem even more beautiful in comparison.

The enemies are also well crafted, and require a series of different strategies to take down. Alice will gain four weapons in the game, and you'll need to use them all in different ways to excel in combat and exploration. Each of the weapons can be upgraded by spending the teeth you collect by killing enemies and exploring the nooks and crannies of the levels. My personal favorite is the pepper grinder, which operates like a machine gun when Alice turns the crank. It's these subtle subversions of expected gaming mechanics that makes the game so much fun for the first few hours.

Alice: Madness Returns

The problem is the platforming rarely changes, and the whole game begins to feel like an item quest. You'll be chasing teeth, bottles, memories, and trying to pepper pig snouts—because that's what you do—while trying to keep an eye open for all the different kinds of collectibles, and it can all grow tiresome. While the graphics and look of each world may change, you'll also be floating from platform to platform and solving light puzzles. There are a few neat moments when the gameplay changes somewhat, but those moments are wildly uneven.

It's fun to explore each world for a bit, but then it seems to drag on and on as you continually do the same thing. There were many sessions where I was just wishing for a section to end already so I could leave the game at a good point for the night. That should never be a feeling you get from a platformer. When I was in the middle of a long quest in a world, only to meet a character who gave me another repetitive task featuring multiple steps before he would give me what I needed to finish the original quest, I wanted to throw the controller down in disgust.

The graphical quality of the game is also problematic. While the art direction is superb, you'll often find muddy textures, characters lacking detail, or graphical glitches. The voices likewise alternate between magical and hard to sit through. In some sections it seems like quality was controlled and kept high, only to come crashing down in the next segment of the game.

When the game clicks, and the story and setting and action all work together, it's a wonderful time. The problem is this rarely happens, and a stronger hand was needed to work on the pace of the levels. I found myself wishing the game would grow as I progressed, or at least give the action more than a new look in a new world. This is a game that would have benefited greatly from being shorter and tighter; the extra length doesn't add anything to the game but tedium.

I did not finish this game due to time constraints, but I did want to share my thoughts. I was also to the point where if I wasn't being paid to play the game, I would quit, which is a good place to stick a fork in it and explain my frustrations. This is a game fans of the character need to try, but I think most will be comfortable with a taste. Only the die-hards are going to be happy with a $60 purchase.

I was lucky enough to get the game for 45 dollars, and the fact that it comes with the original game if you buy it new was enough for me to give it a shot.

While I'm interested in the game, I'm actually much happier to see that my wife is enjoying it. She's not turned off by a lot of the things that normally get on my nerves (or the nerves of gamers like me) so a lot of the flaws don't get to her. Sitting with her while she plays has been a lot of fun.

But yes, after the first night of playing she got on a train and crashed into a castle and was still in the first chapter. I was shocked that this was still chapter 1.

This is a game a lot of people are going to vew through rose-tinted glasses. The original game had similar issues. None of the effective weapons had enough ammo, defeating an enemy felt unsatisfying, the dialogue droned endlessly because the creators felt that's what made it sound Victorian. It was trapped in a hellish space between a platformer and a shooter and didn't really satisfy with either.

American McGee has never really understood pacing, and never quite grasped how to use game mechanics to forward story. I'm glad his name isn't plastered on this one, because at this point I don't think it'd be much of a draw.

I put a lot of hours into the original on Mac, but this review could almost apply to that game. The graphics were imaginative if dated. The story line was predictable if you're familiar with any of the other dystopian Wonderland spin-offs. Eventually my interest in the game just sort of petered out.

I also preordered the game the day Amazon had it up for preorder for $45.

I played the original game on PC back in the day. I even installed it on my Windows 7 machine recently and played it for about an hour.

I've played the new game for about 3 hours and am enjoying it so far. I played the original DLC version and I could not control the game very well at all with the controller. The new game controls great at least.

Matrices, you could ask the same of DNF. Perhaps the basic problem is attempting to recreate prior successes from a very different era rather than set out to make something new and novel now (Bulletstorm would be my nomination for recent innovation, but 10 years from now I'm definitely not going to be waiting for Bulletstorm 2.)

Woo another quality review from Ben. This time he admits to not even finishing the game. Seriously? It was bad enough that he was biased against Duke from the start and then went on to admit to liking Family Guy after calling Duke's humor "offensive". Now he doesn't even finish games he reviews?

Just for kicks I went and read his review of Crysis 2. I burst out laughing when he talked about how "gorgeous" the game was, when it doesn't even look half as good as the original (own both on PC, with a PC capable of running the original at highest settings). Then he went on to talk about how theres "multiple attack angles" for certain situations, which couldn't have been further from the truth. Game is just as point A to point B as everything else. Even better he talked about "wide open spaces" for bigger battles. Hah! Somehow that gets praise for Crysis 2 yet the same thing in Duke gets trashed.

Hey Ars, you guys have a fantastic site. But Ben seriously needs to go. He's a typical bandwagon reviewer that hates whatever is popular to hate amongst other reviewers and now he's admitting to not even finishing games. Not to mention the fact that he was flat out wrong about and lied about things in Duke Nukem. No integrity at all.

And why are you reviewing this game on the PS3 anyway? It's a well known fact that this is a PC game. The PC version has effects the console versions don't. If you want to appear as a legitimate reviewer, stop reviewing free copies and buy the games yourself.

I was planning on picking this up when it got down to the $20-30 mark. From the sounds of this review, I might not be waiting too long. I enjoyed the first game quite a bit, although I'm well aware that many people couldn't stand it. We'll see what I think of this one.

You might be able to pull off something like this with OnLive, where you would stream a console version to the PC. I don't think this is what you're going for, though. I also haven't tried it, so I can't speak to the quality of this option, I've just heard about it.

If you want to appear as a legitimate reviewer, stop reviewing free copies and buy the games yourself.

By that metric, just how many gaming publications employ "legitimate reviewers"?

As skicow said, none.

Quote:

I'll be sure to let the publisher, developer, creator, and PR behind the game know just how they are. Thanks for giving us a heads up!

Original game was PC only. This game was ported to the consoles, missing graphics and other effects from the PC version. The majority of fans are waiting for this on the PC. So why waste your time with the PS3 version? Why not finish the game? "Time constraints"? Life must be hard when all you have to do is play games and read other websites to see what bandwagon to jump on for your review!

Woo another quality review from Ben. This time he admits to not even finishing the game. Seriously? It was bad enough that he was biased against Duke from the start and then went on to admit to liking Family Guy after calling Duke's humor "offensive". Now he doesn't even finish games he reviews?

Just for kicks I went and read his review of Crysis 2. I burst out laughing when he talked about how "gorgeous" the game was, when it doesn't even look half as good as the original (own both on PC, with a PC capable of running the original at highest settings). Then he went on to talk about how theres "multiple attack angles" for certain situations, which couldn't have been further from the truth. Game is just as point A to point B as everything else. Even better he talked about "wide open spaces" for bigger battles. Hah! Somehow that gets praise for Crysis 2 yet the same thing in Duke gets trashed.

Hey Ars, you guys have a fantastic site. But Ben seriously needs to go. He's a typical bandwagon reviewer that hates whatever is popular to hate amongst other reviewers and now he's admitting to not even finishing games. Not to mention the fact that he was flat out wrong about and lied about things in Duke Nukem. No integrity at all.

And why are you reviewing this game on the PS3 anyway? It's a well known fact that this is a PC game. The PC version has effects the console versions don't. If you want to appear as a legitimate reviewer, stop reviewing free copies and buy the games yourself.

I disagree with your review of Ben. I think he writes about how he feels after playing the game. I disagree with him... often, but I don't say that he is faking the reviews. I think he performs a valuable service by giving us his perspective on games, even if it is wildly different then mine. (seriously, check how mad I got about the "map" he posted in the DNF thread).

The fact that the game was so uninteresting to him as to make him stop playing is more valuable information than "I hated the first 6 hours, then I kept going to the end and really hated it".

"The game did so little to draw me in and keep me interested that I eventually gave up" is a perfectly valid review, especially when you go into as much detail explaining what it is that made you give up on the game as this review did.

Ben, do you believe this is one of those situations where time constraints on the business of reviewing games influences the experience? In other words, if you had the ability to play the game in small slices over weeks, would it feel somewhat different?

Good post about Alice. I have about 7 hours into now and my experiences on the PS3 match pretty much point for point the same so far.

Just in case: Spoiler alert.

Despite all the neat touches and polish areas, the game feels rushed or unfinished in different parts. There are clipping problems, like a small protrusion on the floor for example, edge of a floor plank will keep Alice stuck and unable to move though a doorway. So you must back up several steps move completely away from the plank and then you can go though the door. (Think of the object being invisible and larger that what the texture is displaying for its size and shape)

The biggest bummer so far is lockouts. Here you have two paths, one to the left, with the small Alice vision you can see where there are some goodies and you think you hear a pig snout. On the right you have some platforms and spotted some teeth. So you go right to explore the area a bit and then decide to head back to grab the pig snout collectable. Surprise! A door closed behind you and no, its not going to open back up. "Oh so sorry! I know you wanted those items and that you don't want to miss them as they are unique to the level but TOO BAD!" This is supposed to be wonderland, adventure, exploration all that good stuff.

Whoever came up with the idea of door lock outs needs to experience the lock out themselves. Locked out of their car and house while stuck in the rain. Soo sorry, you should have stayed in the house it would have been better that way..... *queue Evil Emperor laughter*

Occasionally I will see some good level design where players paying attention or a bit clever are rewarded. Example, there was a big mosh pit fight area complete with fists of floor pounding doom, if you looked before you ran into the room (yes the door locks behind you) you will have noted ledges on the left and right. Hop on top of either side and the fight is way easier.

I am all for game length but it does feel tedious especially for going out of your way for trinkets. You are always on the look out for the trinket items yet they do not feel connected or part of the story at all. The only one that works is the memory trinket - it displays a small picture and plays an audio message. That part is good and it feels more connected to the storyline. You feel rewarded as another plot portion clicks into place.

The platforming elements can be annoying at times as Alices's shoes must clear entirely or she will not make the jump. No grabbing the edge or other such nonsense, you either jump properly or you do not! lol

When failing jump segments, there were times the designer was pretty nice about it and Alice quickly reappeared nearby. Other times they will force you to start at the very beginning and go though the entire jump series section all the way to completion.

Fortunately I am still enjoying the game just enough to keep going. The storyline thus far is a bit on the thin side. Perhaps there will be some plot twists to spice things up a bit? Hmmm.

The graphical quality of the game is also problematic. While the art direction is superb, you'll often find muddy textures, characters lacking detail, or graphical glitches. The voices likewise alternate between magical and hard to sit through. In some sections it seems like quality was controlled and kept high, only to come crashing down in the next segment of the game.

This happens on the PC side too. Picked up the game for the PC yesterday at Wally World for $10 bucks after I finished off what was left on a gift card left over from my birthday last month. One of the first things I noticed is that there is a distinct and visible point where the LOD shifts, and texture resolution changes drastically. This point shifts when moving from first-person view back to third person (it's really obvious in town when you're looking at store signs).

From what I can tell, the only flourishes available on the PC version that aren't on console would be the addition of hardware PhysX support ala Mafia 2 (so a few more particle effects with explosions - big whoop). Otherwise, the textures and models look identical to the 360 and PS3 versions. Granted, you've got the advantage of resolution support up to infinite, and the game plays without a single framerate snag on my setup at 1920x1200.

Ben, do you believe this is one of those situations where time constraints on the business of reviewing games influences the experience? In other words, if you had the ability to play the game in small slices over weeks, would it feel somewhat different?

That's a really good question, because that IS how I played it. I've had this copy of the game for some time, and played it a little bit at a time, and then when I came back from E3 I was kind of dreading the idea of grinding the last bits to get to the end, especially when I have never games I'm more excited about playing. So I made the call to stick a fork in it, and write about what I had played.

It got to the point where I really wanted to walk away from the game because it had become so tedious. It felt like I was working when I played it. That's never a good sign, so I decided to write this piece at that point, and then move onto other games.

I have some neat indie games coming up for coverage, and a copy of Shadows of the Damned on the my desk, so I think you'll be happy with the coverage coming up!

Ben, do you believe this is one of those situations where time constraints on the business of reviewing games influences the experience? In other words, if you had the ability to play the game in small slices over weeks, would it feel somewhat different?

That's a really good question, because that IS how I played it. I've had this copy of the game for some time, and played it a little bit at a time, and then when I came back from E3 I was kind of dreading the idea of grinding the last bits to get to the end, especially when I have never games I'm more excited about playing. So I made the call to stick a fork in it, and write about what I had played.

It got to the point where I really wanted to walk away from the game because it had become so tedious. It felt like I was working when I played it. That's never a good sign, so I decided to write this piece at that point, and then move onto other games.

You DO see... had same experience with AW1. Pretty in dark way... which got the peek, and after 'peak'got olde quickenly.I have some neat indie games coming up for coverage, and a copy of Shadows of the Damned on the my desk, so I think you'll be happy with the coverage coming up!

Am I the only one sensing that Ben may be getting a tid burned out? I could be wrong. It could be that lately the games have really been *that* bad but I don't think I've read a glowing review from him in a while. He's been better on the previews, especially the e3 coverage. Maybe the loss of Frank Caron is finally getting to him. If so, I gladly volunteer to share the load, until he gets back on his game. I ought to warn you, my review style is somewhat akin to the time Homer became a food critic.

To each their own, some will more than likely love it and some won't. Ben gives pretty decent reviews and only one I've really thought he was off. But it is what it is, his opinion on how he feels when he plays the game. He's just letting like minded individuals to know not to waste hard earned cash on something you go "meh " at.

Ben, from purely a prose perspective, this is one of the best pieces you've ever written, the third paragraph ("many beautiful touches") in particular. The review was also a lot more objective than I'm used to, even given your prior standards. Keep up the good work.

Quote:

Am I the only one sensing that Ben may be getting a tid burned out? I could be wrong. It could be that lately the games have really been *that* bad but I don't think I've read a glowing review from him in a while.

IMO, the answer is C) All of the above. Yes, lately games *have* been that bad, and just like the rest of us, Ben seems to be getting tired of it. Luckily we have a fairly steady stream of high-quality indie titles to praise instead.